Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Except for This One, I Guess. What Difference Could That Make?

Every so often, I see some headline or other that makes me think: There are folks who start out with the idea, more or less, that the real truth about God cannot be really known. A lot of those people also think that all religions contain something of the truth, point the way to God in some way.

Then they run across, say, a story about Ugandan child-sacrifices, and--if they make the connection from the story to their thoughts on religion in general at all, which, believe me, they don't always do--their thinking alters. Now, it's most religions contain something of the truth, point the way to God in someway. Most religions except, obviously, that one. Somehow, they know that one's not right.

But how? How do they know that? And if they know that, why is that means of knowing not applicable to other religions? That is, if they can know that Ugandan religions that trade in child sacrifice are not right, why can't they, by the same means, know that Santeria, or voudoun, or Thuggee(Okay, that one's probably died out...), or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Islam, or Christianity is right or wrong? In whole or in part?

I'm not sure I see a whole lotta options here. Seems to me that either you admit that you can, in fact, by some means, know that a religion is right or wrong, in whole or in part, or you are pretty much stuck with the idea that you can't really know for sure that child sacrifice isn't a pathway toward God. If, then, you can know something of the truth about God, why wouldn't you be responsible for believing it? Why wouldn't you be responsible for doing what God wants you to do, if you can, in any degree, discern what that is? Why wouldn't you be responsible for finding out as much truth about God as you can? And if, in your searching, you find out quite a bit of truth about God, why wouldn't you be responsible for telling others?